I think that the character changed after the murder. The murder was a turning point for his life and the book, the climax of the book. In the beginning of the book, he was indifferent about his mother's death. He did not know when his mother died and did not bother to find out. The day after his mother's death, he goes out to have fun with a woman as if his mother's death has no impact on him. Even when Salamano lost his dog, Salamano closed himself up and cried. The character is reminded of his mother's death and the readers are noted the difference between how Salamano reacted to a loss compared to how the character reacted. We never see the character show a hint of emotion; no tears, no nothing, but even losing his dog caused an emotion to erupt in Salamano. Even marriage means nothing to him. When Marie asked if he was going to marry her, he simply replied that it did not matter to him, that they could do it if she wanted to. To us, marriage is a big commitment, a right of passage where most freedom are taken away. But marriage to the character is just another meaningless moment in his life. He also does not seem to have any ambitions in life. When his boss offered a promotion in Paris, he turned it down.
Right after he kills the Arab, he realizes that he had "knocked on the door of unhappiness." He knew the consequences, like anyone else would. This is the first time when we can connect with the character. Before the murder, we would always question his actions, his thinking but this time, the character and we know that karma was going to get him. After getting to know his cell, he felt like he "was at home." This is also the first time we know how he felt; he feels comfortable in jail. While he was in jail, he starts to think about his life, life in general, and how successful he lived his life. He also managed to stop smoking, and I think that symbolizes a change in his life. He also starts to take notice of the small things in his cell, the furniture, the details, the cracks, the color, and the texture. This also made him reminisce and think about the moments he used to avoid. During one point of his trial, he said that it was the first time he felt the "stupid urge to cry." Nothing in the book, up until his trial, has made me want to cry and I think the murder has made him open to feelings. When Celeste tried to help him, he also said that he felt like "kissing a man." Normally, he would want to kiss a woman out of lust but this time he wanted to kiss someone because of gratitude. We never see him appreciate anyone like he did during the trial. The character has been opened up his feelings and we are able to connect with him after the murder of the Arab.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Who is this guy?
I think this guy is what the title implies: a stranger to us. He makes me feel depressed and confused by not showing any of his emotions. In the beginning of the book, he portrays a sense of detachment from his mother, the person who brought him to the world. We wonder why he is so indifferent to his mother because we are expected to show sadness and pain in similar situations. By the end of chapter two, the character lets the readers know that he is able to continue his life without complications. It is as if his mother has no affect on him and that he shows no care for his mother or anything in the world. Realistically, people would shed tears and stay in bed for days but the character goes out to make love the next day. I think Camus wants us to be confused and feel different from the character. I find it hard to connect with the character. In a way, we are a stranger. We are unable to understand him and he is unable to understand us. The character and we are strangers to each other.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Warning... may be kinda depressing....
Honestly, I don’t even know anymore whether we live in a world that is meaningful and that makes sense. Some people will say no and some people will say the cliché answers: “yes, because of the people we love and the things we love to do.” But sometimes, life gets to a point where you think the people you love don’t really matter or the things you used to love to do become cyclical and boring. Maybe it is just a moment of drama but I think there are two answers to the big question; it really depends on people’s lives.
The way I see Bernard’s quote: “everything is the same, even if it’s different,” is that everything has the same value. This goes well with an argument that life or the world is meaningless. Everything has the same value; nothing is more significant than another; life is boring; so when one thing is meaningless, everything else is meaningless. It can go the other way too; let us say that one thing is meaningful. If one thing is meaningful and everything is the same, then everything else is meaningful. But I don’t think this argument works as well because we don’t really see everything as meaningful. And if everything is meaningful, then how will we know the difference between our family and the person that is most despised in school to figure out who we should love, who makes life meaningful. Then again, the person that is most despised in school may be the person that makes life interesting. But without the love of family or friends, nothing really matters even if the hated person still goes to school.
I also want to refer to what Tommy’s girlfriend and what Tommy said.
Tommy’s girlfriend: “if nothing matters, then how can I matter?”
Tommy: “once you realize the universe sucks, you got nothing left to lose.”
Tommy’s girlfriend has a point; if the world is meaningless, then everything in the world is meaningless. This connects to what Tommy said; if everything in the world is meaningless, then what is there to value and what is the point of life. It kind of reminds me of Banach; Banach says that we must lose all external values to seek internal happiness. We must see no point in the world to drop all external values. Once we lose all external values, then we can find happiness but what is the point of happiness when there is no point in life? Whether or not there is meaning in the world depends on how you view the events in life and I find it hard to be optimistic all throughout life.
The way I see Bernard’s quote: “everything is the same, even if it’s different,” is that everything has the same value. This goes well with an argument that life or the world is meaningless. Everything has the same value; nothing is more significant than another; life is boring; so when one thing is meaningless, everything else is meaningless. It can go the other way too; let us say that one thing is meaningful. If one thing is meaningful and everything is the same, then everything else is meaningful. But I don’t think this argument works as well because we don’t really see everything as meaningful. And if everything is meaningful, then how will we know the difference between our family and the person that is most despised in school to figure out who we should love, who makes life meaningful. Then again, the person that is most despised in school may be the person that makes life interesting. But without the love of family or friends, nothing really matters even if the hated person still goes to school.
I also want to refer to what Tommy’s girlfriend and what Tommy said.
Tommy’s girlfriend: “if nothing matters, then how can I matter?”
Tommy: “once you realize the universe sucks, you got nothing left to lose.”
Tommy’s girlfriend has a point; if the world is meaningless, then everything in the world is meaningless. This connects to what Tommy said; if everything in the world is meaningless, then what is there to value and what is the point of life. It kind of reminds me of Banach; Banach says that we must lose all external values to seek internal happiness. We must see no point in the world to drop all external values. Once we lose all external values, then we can find happiness but what is the point of happiness when there is no point in life? Whether or not there is meaning in the world depends on how you view the events in life and I find it hard to be optimistic all throughout life.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Personal Manifesto
I believe that we are absolute individuals whether or not we are affected by each other. I think that the factors around us, the external values, and our environment are what make us who we are. Each of us is affected by different external values and therefore is affected differently. Even if we live in the same environment, how we interact with the environment is different. We are all different and that is what makes us an absolute individual. Banach says that an absolute individual must be locked away inside of us and that doing so makes us an absolute individual.
Friday, October 2, 2009
HW 3? Comments
Jia Min!
Thanks for commenting on my post.
This whole happiness thing... I agree with whoever brought up the point about how are we able to tell the difference between happiness and love. Now that I think about it etymologically, I think love is word to describe the feeling and a situation. Happiness, is a broad word to describe a feeling. Bottom line, let us say that happiness is a good feeling.
Keep commenting!
Charles!
Your ffirst paragraph strikes me, except for the spelling of "all" which you spelled "amm". Anyways, I alwayys wanted to disagree with Banach with that point of his but I could not put my finger on what was wrong with his point until I read your post. You are absolutely correct, there is no golden rule to follow. How can we really be free if we have to worry about whether or not other people are free? We are individuals and we have the freedom to choose what to do!
To answer your question, I still think that mentally and/or spiritually, we are free; we are free to think what we want. However, we are restricted to what we can do physically and this, is where our freedom no longer becomes freedom.
Thanks for your post, it helped me clarify my own thinking.
Carrie
Thanks for your post Carrie.
Your post cleared the fog I had about Sysiphus. At first, I was in the same position as you were; what was the point of Sysiphus? But after reading your post, it the story of Sysiphus actually did make sense. As I read half way through your first paragraph, it started to remind me of Snyder's class. Half way through the first paragraph, it seemed as if Sysiphus was doing the same thing over and over again and yet he was still happy. It also seemed you were trying to say that rolling up rocks were better than sitting at the bottom of the hill and doing nothing. I was going to ask you whether yu thought sitting in front of your computer and doing the same thing over and over again waas a happy thing. But as I read on, it seems that there are more to just rolling up rocks over and over again; there is the challenges you meet when doing so.
But really, does sitting in front of your computer doing the same thing over and over again make someone happy? On one hand, I think it makes me happy when I am chatting with friends on AIM or writing a comment on your post. But on the other, it really does seem like a waste of time to stay on the computer.
I think it was worth it to tangent away from Banach. Your post was really optimistic, really inspiring. What I was thinking though, iis that we all have something to live for; what happens, when that thing is no longer there? Do we just give up on life like some people do? Or do we find something new to live for? If we find something to live for, how do we go about looking?
I really loved your post; as always, really inspiring.
Thanks for commenting on my post.
This whole happiness thing... I agree with whoever brought up the point about how are we able to tell the difference between happiness and love. Now that I think about it etymologically, I think love is word to describe the feeling and a situation. Happiness, is a broad word to describe a feeling. Bottom line, let us say that happiness is a good feeling.
Keep commenting!
Charles!
Your ffirst paragraph strikes me, except for the spelling of "all" which you spelled "amm". Anyways, I alwayys wanted to disagree with Banach with that point of his but I could not put my finger on what was wrong with his point until I read your post. You are absolutely correct, there is no golden rule to follow. How can we really be free if we have to worry about whether or not other people are free? We are individuals and we have the freedom to choose what to do!
To answer your question, I still think that mentally and/or spiritually, we are free; we are free to think what we want. However, we are restricted to what we can do physically and this, is where our freedom no longer becomes freedom.
Thanks for your post, it helped me clarify my own thinking.
Carrie
Thanks for your post Carrie.
Your post cleared the fog I had about Sysiphus. At first, I was in the same position as you were; what was the point of Sysiphus? But after reading your post, it the story of Sysiphus actually did make sense. As I read half way through your first paragraph, it started to remind me of Snyder's class. Half way through the first paragraph, it seemed as if Sysiphus was doing the same thing over and over again and yet he was still happy. It also seemed you were trying to say that rolling up rocks were better than sitting at the bottom of the hill and doing nothing. I was going to ask you whether yu thought sitting in front of your computer and doing the same thing over and over again waas a happy thing. But as I read on, it seems that there are more to just rolling up rocks over and over again; there is the challenges you meet when doing so.
But really, does sitting in front of your computer doing the same thing over and over again make someone happy? On one hand, I think it makes me happy when I am chatting with friends on AIM or writing a comment on your post. But on the other, it really does seem like a waste of time to stay on the computer.
I think it was worth it to tangent away from Banach. Your post was really optimistic, really inspiring. What I was thinking though, iis that we all have something to live for; what happens, when that thing is no longer there? Do we just give up on life like some people do? Or do we find something new to live for? If we find something to live for, how do we go about looking?
I really loved your post; as always, really inspiring.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Response to Part III and/or IV of Banach's Lecture
I feel that Banach is being too idealistic when he say that "[the] value one gets from within is infinitely better than the value one vainly attempts to get from outside". What if our family was the factor that makes us happy? What if our family was taken away from us? What can we really say is making us happy? I think that there has to be a physical object, whether that be a person or a book, in order for one to be motivated, rejuvenated.
It does not make sense to sit there and say, I am happy because I found happiness from within myself (that I do not think exists). There is no feeling of happiness if there were no external factors influencing us. We cannot say that we are happy without anything that makes us happy.
Sure, happiness does not come from the Bamboozlers and Dingdangers; but without the idea of Christmas, the physical state of the colorful Christmas tree and the jolly music, there would be no point of Christmas. Christmas cannot just be a word that people interpret happiness from within oneself, there has to be an external celebration of the holiday.
I thought part IV was pretty interesting. The fact that attempting "to enslave others to use them as objects" makes one "a slave and an object". It makes sense, to have slaves is to create expectations of you so that you can keep them in order. With expectations, you cannot be yourself and you are confined to what you can do; causing you to become a slave of the expectations.
And the question, are we really free? According to what I discussed above, it seems as if we are not free; either we are a slave of someone, or we a slave of expectations. Banach also thinks that "[a painter's] freedom is a freedom of synthesis constrained by the material she has to work with and the requirement that she make some one unified thing out of it". I partially agree with Banach; the painter is limited to what materials she can use to paint so we are not really free. But when he says that the painter has to make someone out of the materials, I was thinking the opposite. I believe that a painter does not have to be under the influence of expectations. Painters should paint whatever they wish and it is up to the interpreter, the audience, to make of the painting.
Our own thoughts are not circumscribed. We have the freedom to think whatever we want but it is our physical being that has to hold back. If there are no materials to fully satisfy a painter, the painter cannot make what she intended to paint. But, the painter can still think, imagine, what she wants to make. Likewise, we can think of killing someone, but because of laws and rules, we cannot. Basically, we are physically restricted but we are free mentally.
It does not make sense to sit there and say, I am happy because I found happiness from within myself (that I do not think exists). There is no feeling of happiness if there were no external factors influencing us. We cannot say that we are happy without anything that makes us happy.
Sure, happiness does not come from the Bamboozlers and Dingdangers; but without the idea of Christmas, the physical state of the colorful Christmas tree and the jolly music, there would be no point of Christmas. Christmas cannot just be a word that people interpret happiness from within oneself, there has to be an external celebration of the holiday.
I thought part IV was pretty interesting. The fact that attempting "to enslave others to use them as objects" makes one "a slave and an object". It makes sense, to have slaves is to create expectations of you so that you can keep them in order. With expectations, you cannot be yourself and you are confined to what you can do; causing you to become a slave of the expectations.
And the question, are we really free? According to what I discussed above, it seems as if we are not free; either we are a slave of someone, or we a slave of expectations. Banach also thinks that "[a painter's] freedom is a freedom of synthesis constrained by the material she has to work with and the requirement that she make some one unified thing out of it". I partially agree with Banach; the painter is limited to what materials she can use to paint so we are not really free. But when he says that the painter has to make someone out of the materials, I was thinking the opposite. I believe that a painter does not have to be under the influence of expectations. Painters should paint whatever they wish and it is up to the interpreter, the audience, to make of the painting.
Our own thoughts are not circumscribed. We have the freedom to think whatever we want but it is our physical being that has to hold back. If there are no materials to fully satisfy a painter, the painter cannot make what she intended to paint. But, the painter can still think, imagine, what she wants to make. Likewise, we can think of killing someone, but because of laws and rules, we cannot. Basically, we are physically restricted but we are free mentally.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Blog Comments #2
Jenise
Sam
Takes a great deal to say that you are fake.
We live up to people's expectations and that already makes us fake. Expectations are outside influences that change who we are.
What strike me as interesting is how you connected morality to being authentic. I have never thought that having a good sense of morality would contradict being "real".
But then again, according to Banach, every individual have the freedom to choose what to believe so if you choose to follow a certain morality, then you cannot really be fake about it (in my opinion). Then yet again, society has a lot of contradictions.
The way you said your thoughts are not your ideas sounds like you do not have absolute individuality. Banach says everyone does (but hell, Banach isn't the center of everything). But I think you are pointing out another contradiction made by Banach; how can we be an absolute individual when we are also affected by external factors?
Your post was pretty well written (in my point of view); I just want to ask 'what other contradictions can you think of that this society contains' just to see what you think.
Your blog was awesome and made me think about the contradictions.
lol, I love how you are probably doing thhis post on your sidekick.
I see that you agree with Banach, that things must exist before its essence.
But, you say that "the thought of [the present] is causing it to exist" which I think means that the present's essence has existed before the present has existed.
I think you have some validity in your point; there are some things where you think "Oh, I need this thing and I can use this and that to synthesize it." In this case, you have created essence before existence.
I see that this post is still in progress but I hope you incorporate some of Banach's quotes.
It was a great starting post, thanks!
Sam
Takes a great deal to say that you are fake.
We live up to people's expectations and that already makes us fake. Expectations are outside influences that change who we are.
What strike me as interesting is how you connected morality to being authentic. I have never thought that having a good sense of morality would contradict being "real".
But then again, according to Banach, every individual have the freedom to choose what to believe so if you choose to follow a certain morality, then you cannot really be fake about it (in my opinion). Then yet again, society has a lot of contradictions.
The way you said your thoughts are not your ideas sounds like you do not have absolute individuality. Banach says everyone does (but hell, Banach isn't the center of everything). But I think you are pointing out another contradiction made by Banach; how can we be an absolute individual when we are also affected by external factors?
Your post was pretty well written (in my point of view); I just want to ask 'what other contradictions can you think of that this society contains' just to see what you think.
Your blog was awesome and made me think about the contradictions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)